There is no more fundamental component of culture than food and drink.   As Brillat Savarin wrote, “The fate of nations depends upon how they eat.” A starving nation is known as a failed state.

These are dark days here in Canada. Food sections have been radically down-sized.  People who merely eat have become self-proclaimed experts.  Food writing is added to magazines and newspapers almost as an afterthought.   The most stunningly–stupid nail in the coffin was driven in last week in Toronto.  With the dismissal of James Chatto from Toronto Life it is clear that this particular publication has slipped into the illusion that ‘long format’  food writing is of no value and years of experience  count for little or nothing.  James Chatto’s contribution to the food life of Canada has been immense.  His book, The Man Who Ate Toronto, is the history of that city’s restaurant community.  His constant monitoring of the food scene there has made him the most respected food journalist in the region – perhaps even in Canada –  and a real inspiration for young chefs to join the gastro-scene.

As one of the judges for the Le Cordon Bleu World Food Media Awards, let me assure you that Canada is one of the few nations on earth where such food communication – wise, balanced, insightful reporting – is dismissed so callously.  Perhaps because, for centuries, food has been so abundant here that it is taken for granted. We have so much that we simply have no perceived need to write or communicate about it unless it’s a sound bite or promotional piece.

As Dr. Barbara Santich, the co-founder of the Australian Symposium on Gastronomy writes, “As food is to wine, so is language to gastronomy… Language is a means of anticipating, prolonging, repeating, intensifying the gastronomic experience – and also an invitation to others to share it.”

Over the years I’ve come to believe that when one door slams closed, another one opens. For  James, he’ll be working on his next book, but for the restaurant community in Toronto and environs it may be a long time before someone of his ilk surfaces to nurture the talent and ingredients that we all know are part of our collective heritage.

Photo by Quinn Dombrowski. Published under a Creative Commons License.

Even with the fanfare, the Liberal party is not entering into a massive food policy void.  Canada has a food policy.  For better or worse, Canada has a whole pile of government food policies, regulatory agencies, and organizational tiers.  Months ago, a similar conversation process took place about a national food policy, and continues to draw conclusions and influence program management in the public health sector.

The new Liberal policy delicately dances around the current structures, not focusing on heavy restructuring, rather looking at increasing efficiency within the current system.  That said, there already is a strong level of restructuring and evaluation.  Just consider the Auditor General’s report last week, evaluating the efficacy of the Research Branch at Agriculture and Agrifood Canada, or the discussion paper from a month ago on Sustainable Development.  Some of the evaluation and reevaluation proposed sounds repetitive.

Within this document, there is very little to cause protest.  After all, it’s supposed to draw support to the party.  The highlights read like grand generalizations about change, and in my opinion there is not a lot of substance to evaluate.  Personally, I am delighted that a party is looking to prioritize the food issue.  But will it change my political views?  I won’t pass judgment until I see the full platform with action plans, not just generalizations.

It’s misleading to assume that the platform will narrow the “rural-urban divide”.  And it’s ironic to assume that food issues are solely a rural issue.   Agriculture and fisheries are still predominantly rural, but the continuum from farm or sea to fork is a more complex path.  The rural environment has been neglected, but beyond that, there has not been a comprehensive approach to full food sector development beyond agriculture, as evidenced in last year’s budget.  Most secondary processing and distribution is an urban issue, while nutrition issues, inspection and food packaging laws will impact us all, whether we are in the 20% rural minority, or not.

Lastly, there is no mention of the cultural importance of a strong food sector.  Economics is vital, and public health care, like it or not, is really an economic issue.  How can political policies reenforce our culinary cultural identity?  Developing a stronger cultural and societal value for food will reinforce public support for best economic policies for the food sector.

Have you read the new food policy platform?  Are you going to join the debates?  What do you like, and what is missing?

————————————–

Posted by Amy Proulx

Photo © countryliving.com

Whether it’s inferior olive oil passed off as extra-virgin,  cow’s milk cheese sold under an expensive sheep’s milk label, or mouldy tomato paste sneaking past quality control and into ketchup bottles,  food fraud is a growing concern.

In a recent article,  U of Guelph technology helps US monitor food fraud, Stewart Laidlaw writes:

The FDA called U of G, which has come up with a world-leading technology using DNA testing to sort out such frauds.

“We’re the ones writing the protocols for the FDA,” says U of G professor Robert Hanner.

Hanner is the global campaign co-ordinator of the school’s Barcode of Life project, which is working to genetically identify all the varieties of fish in the world. The resulting database can then be used to identify the types of fish sold to consumers.

Of course, fraud isn’t new, it doesn’t stop at the border, nor is it limited to fish. But if Canada doesn’t keep up with the US on food fraud issues, Hanner wonders if our own technology could be used against us.

What sort of anti-fraud measures would you like to see initiated in Canada? Should we follow the US lead, work together or create our own system?

Photo © geishaboy500. Published under a Creative Commons License.

What is the Canadian law for satiety claims?

Written by Ronald L. Doering

The food, beverage and supplement weight management product market in the U.S. last year was $3.64 billion and growing fast. There are several approaches including providing slimming ingredients that increase energy expenditure, moderating carbohydrate metabolism and blocking dietary fat absorption. For the food industry, beyond the traditional claims such as low fat (food minus), a burgeoning new field involves a shift to satiety claims (food plus). Foods marketed for satiety have enhanced levels of fibre or protein and claim to enhance feelings of fullness after eating, helping the consumer to resist hunger pangs between meals. Seeing the market potential created by the rapid rise of obesity, and the increasing recognition that most diets don’t work over time, the Canadian food industry has already been pushing the envelope on satiety claims. What is the Canadian law?

For many years, food regulators in Canada insisted that satiety-type claims on food were not legal as they fell under the “drug” definition. While it took some serious pushing back, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) now appears to accept the argument that hunger is a desire, an appetite for food to satisfy a craving of the body, or an uneasy sensation, not an organic function and therefore not a drug claim. As a result, “reduces hunger,” “helps to reduce your appetite,” “satisfies hunger feelings” and “increases feelings of fullness” are now all widely used in the marketplace without enforcement action.

The CFIA continues to cling to the distinction that “satisfying hunger” is acceptable but “managing hunger” is not. I’m not making this up and will not try to explain the CFIA rationale (it’s a bit like the “clear” distinction that the CFIA considers laxative claims as verboten, but laxation claims or “promotes regularity” are perfectly legal).

Foods specifically represented for use in weight maintenance are still governed by a separate regulatory regime that is rooted in the old Information Letter No. 793 (1991), but this “law” is beyond the scope of this article.

There is still a lot of room for regulatory turbulence, particularly given the new products that are close to coming on stream. Some ingredient manufacturers insist that they have products that can promote “body shaping.” Antioxidants such as green tea may have potential in weight management and recent studies have suggested that obesity may have a microbial component opening the door for claims about gut microflora. If one part of Health Canada (HC) does not think the scientific evidence is strong enough (Food and Nutrition) then companies will just go next door to another office at HC and sell the products as natural health products (NHPs) where the standard is not the same and sweeping claims are already being made. This is yet another area where foods are not competing on a level playing field with NHPs.

There is also going to be regulatory turbulence until there is clearer guidance on standards for efficacy. Some companies have suggested that a Satiety Index (SI) be developed, but the unhappy regulatory confusion on Glycemic Index (GI) does not bode well for that approach. Seeing the marketing potential and what competitors are doing, satiety claims will continue to proliferate in the Canadian marketplace. The industry will get bolder in their claims, especially with off-label promotions. Competitors will complain to the CFIA. Uneven enforcement and regulatory uncertainty will abound. Sound familiar?

Photo © Robert Magorian | Dreamstime.com

Update: Deadline has been extended to December 14, 2009.

Food policy in Canada — it’s a bit of a daunting concept.  In Canada, we are blessed to have a bountiful food supply, very low food costs, and a vast variety to choose from.  But what is our policy about food?  We’ve got regulations about food safety, agricultural policy, and so on.  These are technical interpretations of food. Perhaps more importantly, how do we view food in our daily life, in our culture, and in our social responsibility towards each other — and interpret it all through national policies and programs?  Do we have a consensus on how our food security and food sovereignty should develop in the future? A lot of questions, and a lot of answers.

Between 1977 and 1980, the People’s Food Policy Commission asked for feedback on these specific questions. A generation later, many issues remain the same: nutritional quality and obesity, the environmental impact of our agricultural systems, food security and equality.  It is almost eerie, reading the accounts of 30 years ago, and knowing many of the same problems remain unresolved.

Today, the  People’s Food Policy Project, is again seeking the opinions, the stories and views of Canadians of all walks of life. Supported by Heifer International, Inter Pares, USC Canada and Food Secure Canada, this project is currently in the consulting phase until December 14, 2009. In essence, they are asking what is important for you as a participant in our food environment.  What policies would you propose to address these issues?  Whether you are a food professional, a community advocate, a policy specialist, or just an interested consumer, the People’s Food Policy Project wants to hear from you.

If results are like the last report, no single answer or firm consensus will emerge,  but at least they’ll know a number of directions to take when moving forward.  Will a new report bring about tangible change?  Only if there is a strong participation and a upwelling of support.

If you could write a food policy for Canada, what would it look like? We’d love to hear your thoughts, but don’t forget to let the People’s Food Policy Project know your feelings, too.

______________________

Posted by Amy Proulx.
Photo © Lucyrk in LA used under Creative Commons License

Seasoned Pork - a moist dinner at the expense of your health?

As a Home Economist and a Registered  Dietitian,  I am at times torn between loving food (and I mean ALL food – including the delicious crispy fat on a BBQ’d pork chop;  full fat Brie cheese with white crusty bread;  that yummy icing made out of sugar and lard on bakery cakes) and, well… being a Dietitian!

One  food that conflicts me is “seasoned” pork and chicken, which is not “seasoned” in the sense of having added spices or flavourings, as the name might suggest.  Instead, these products have been injected with a solution of water, sodium phosphate, and salt in an effort to preserve a tender texture, even if over-cooked or held warm for long periods.  Because pork and chicken are so lean, they can tend to become dry when cooked – not so with seasoned products.  The sodium phosphate bonds the water molecules to the protein, and the salt acts as an enabler in that process.  The intent, from the perspective of the food processor, is to enhance the eating experience.

The Home Economist sees seasoned pork and chicken as the perfect solution for those who are not overly skilled in the kitchen (no more shoe-leather pork chops) and for food service/restaurants needing to meet the demands of hungry customers who want their food “right now”.  Seasoned pork chops will be fork-tender, even if you’ve overcooked them. Catering managers love seasoned products, because seasoned chicken and pork can be held warm in a chafing dish for many hours at a banquet without becoming dry.  A conversation with Monda Rosenberg , food editor of Chatelaine and cookbook author, revealed that she prefers seasoned pork and recommends it over non-seasoned.

So what’s the downside?  The Dietitian in me cringes at the nutritional consequences of adding sodium phosphate and salt to an otherwise naturally low-in-sodium food. There is more than five times the amount of sodium in a seasoned product over a non-seasoned product.  A 100 g (3 oz) pork chop has about 55 mg of sodium (2% of your Daily Value), but the average seasoned pork chop contains about 300 mg of sodium per 100 g (3 oz) serving (13% Daily Value).  Considering all the attention given to lowering sodium in the food supply, and the astounding number of Canadians with high blood pressure, this is concerning.  Particularly if consumers are not given the choice between seasoned and not seasoned at their local grocery store, or if consumers are oblivious to the meaning of the word “seasoned” on their meat purchases.

If you haven’t noticed the tiny printed word “seasoned” on your meat and poultry purchases, look for it next time you shop.  Some grocery stores stock only seasoned chicken and pork, particularly in Ontario and now in Western Canada.  Other retailers have a variety of seasoned and “regular” chicken and pork, for lack of a better term.  Often seasoned products are less expensive, with the unseasoned products being marketed as “organic” or “hormone/antibiotic-free” at a higher price.

So what do you think of seasoned chicken and pork?  Is health always the priority when it comes to food?  Or is some sacrifice for ‘health’ acceptable when it means more convenient or tastier food?  Is it OK to charge more for food that has not been processed versus foods that have ingredients added?  Is it “buyer beware” or do food processors have some sort of responsibility for providing the healthiest foods possible, even when consumers are demanding convenience and taste as well?

It’s everywhere! “Eat Local” endeavours are touching the country from coast to coast. The ministers of agriculture and aquaculture for the Atlantic provinces just endorsed a rather interesting campaign.

How about a completely vertically integrated large-scale food system as part of the equation? There’s a company that sells the agricultural inputs, even the fuel, then buys the finished product, processes it, and sells it in its own consumer stores. Sound like corporate agriculture, or a grand social experiment? Well, yes. Perhaps a little of each.

“Co-ops are unique in the market, in that we work with producer by supplying the feed, seed and other products they need to grow their products, and we then buy the end result to sell through our stores. Promoting Atlantic products is core to our marketing strategy.” says Mark Higgins, Communications Specialist for Co-op Atlantic.

It’s a pride issue. Higgins suggests, “Co-op is the only chain I am aware of that identifies food from the region in our stores.” With a direct Taste of Place Labeling campaign, it’s straightforward for consumers to identify and choose local product. Their recent marketing strategy, “Eat Atlantic” was celebrated by Ministers of Agriculture John MacDonell of Nova Scotia, Ronald Ouellette of New Brunswick, George Webster of PEI, and Kathy Dunderdale of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Quoting Minister Ouellette, “Consumers are increasingly interested in where their food comes from, and the practice of eating food produced close to home is gaining popularity each day. Many people are beginning to understand and embrace the wide range of healthy and delicious food that is available across our region.” A friendly rivalry is in place, and as individuals pledge their support online, a running tally is calculated to measure participation.

When asked how success will be gauged with this endeavour, Mark Higgins replied, “We will be measuring sales at our stores during the three weeks leading to September 4 to gauge whether the publicity from the Challenge increases our sales of Atlantic products.  However, this is a long-term initiative that will take several years to come to fruition.”

Other retailers across the country have their own “Eat Local” plans in the works.  What strategies would you suggest to Canadian food retailers to enhance sales of local product?

_____________________________________

Posted by Amy Proulx

Photo courtesy of Mark Higgins, Co-op Atlantic

Here’s a topic you won’t see in the food magazines — horsemeat. Chef’s love it, animals lovers balk at the idea and the Japanese want us to ship more.

But this $60-million industry has virtually no regulations and generates a lot of controversy.

To set the record straight, Cuisine Canada’s intrepid Dana McCauley did a lot of digging. In her article Behind the Barn Door: The Hidden Facts about Canada’s Horsemeat Industry, McCauley logs dozens of hours talking to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, meat specialists, the Horse Welfare Alliance of Canada and a horsemeat rancher who asked not to be named.
Amongst McCauley’s conclusions, she writes, “I’ve developed a strong opinion about what’s wrong with the Canadian horsemeat business, too. It isn’t how it’s regulated or that it’s cruel to kill and eat such pretty animals, but that the rules currently allow packers to put poor quality meat with a Canadian stamp on it into the international food system.”

It’s a fascinating read on a topic few will touch.  Even if you’ll never eat horsemeat, food professionals will find this article useful, eye-opening and thought provoking.

Cleaning whitefish just pulled from Georgian Bay

These are the practiced hands of Natasha Akiwenzie. She and her husband Andrew own and operate Akiwenzie’s Fish. Their whitefish, pulled responsibly right from Georgian Bay, makes its way to Toronto Farmers’ Markets and onto the menus of top Toronto chefs like Jamie Kennedy. They’re a small. They’re struggling. And I suspect they aren’t alone.

So when I read Taking Stock of Fish in the Wall Street Journal, it got me thinking. Some CSAs in the US are branching into fish. Is this a effective way to support sustainable seafood and small fisheries in Canada? Do you know of any Canadian CSAs that are doing something like this? Or should we be expanding our CSAs to include something else?